This is a defining moment for the netroots (4.00 / 26)

We face a crossroads.

Are we going to be an ideological movement, or are we going to become a candidate-centric movement?

You can't be both at the same time, especially not with Obama, who is fundamentally hostile to the concept of ideology.

Progressivism is about adherence to a coherent ideology - a set of core values that are applied to politics in a consistent manner. That's what Chris Bowers is - a progressive.

A whole lot of folks reading and commenting at this site aren't progressives. They're Obama supporters. They define themselves not by adherence to ideology, but by adherence to a politician.

For them, blind trust in Obama stands in place of ideology. Whereas to the progressive ideology provides the motive force in assessing politics, to the Obama supporter trust in Obama provides that force. To them, Obama will do the right thing, and anyone who criticizes Obama fails because they don't show the requisite amount of adherence or trust.

Two wings of the site talking past each other.

Two wings that agreed on the pragmatic value of uniting to elect Obama, but whose underlying differences are now returning to the fore.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:48:50 AM UTC

Maybe it's just me, (4.00 / 11)

but I always thought "ideology" was another way of saying "moral compass." Some things are right, some are wrong, but how do you know which is which? Without a working compass, you don't.  

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:55:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that would be a pretty non-traditional concept of "ideology" (0.00 / 0)

Ideology is the battle of ideas, while morals are the (less fluctuating) principals of right and wrong.  

Ideology shifts through experience and experimentation, as ideas are proven worthy or not, in the service of a set of moral principles that stays relatively constant.

It's not a moral principle to say "single payer heath care is the most effective way to provide universal access to high-quality health care"; that's an idea.  The moral would be "everyone should have access to high-quality health care."

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:13:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your logic seems a little off (4.00 / 2)

Every idea is not an ideology or part of a coherent ideology.

"single payer heath care is the most effective way to provide universal access to high-quality health care"

How is that part of an ideology except maybe a technocratic or bureaucratic one? If that's part of an ideology, I would say it'd be based around the tenets that whatever is the most effective way to accomplish delivery of some good or service, that method should be enacted in society.

That sounds a whole lot different than for instance, "core services relating to the general welfare of society should be the responsibility of the public sector to remove unnecessary and potentially damaging profit motives and to ensure against harmful rationing". That sure sounds like there's moral direction in that latter statement.  

---

by: adamterando @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:22:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't understand what you're saying (0.00 / 0)

Traditionally, ideology isn't a set of moral principles, it's a set of ideas.

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:31:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's incorrect (4.00 / 5)

only because you are both spliting hairs. There are  set of oughts that define the ideas. It is not per se a set of specific policies that define an idealogy, so much as the oughts that define the idealogy. The policies (which I am guessing s what you mean by ideas) are what are short hands.

For example- when I say I am for gay rights- it's a greater positon about an ought. The ought there (or moral statement if you don't under the "ought" part of what I am saying) is that of equality. There are separately a set of traditions by which thiscountry under its constitutional democractic principle reach those morals, but there is morality there. It's just not the religious kind.

If you reduce idealogy to a specific set of ideas there is not much room for change or adjustment according to the realities of the world. We can both for example be progressive in our belief that healthcare should be a right- but differ as to the ideas for how to get to the point of achieving it. Whereas, a Republican morally would not see healthcare as a right. There assumption is about the individual, and what that means. That the greatest good is only found through individual, rather than collective action.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:40:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah that's a good point (0.00 / 0)

I was being too simplistic in my thinking.

I suppose ideology is not simply a set of ideas, but a set of ideas in concert with a set ideals, a kind of web of ideas and moral principles.

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:49:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading more closely (0.00 / 0)

Your quoted sentence is still an idea, and therefore still part of a potential ideology.  

The moral would be "we should ensure against harmful rationing."

The idea would be to do so by "removing unnecessary and potentially damaging profit motives" by making  "core services relating to the general welfare of society...the responsibility of the public sector."

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:39:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, that's not right, either (0.00 / 0)

The need to "ensure against harmful rationing" is itself an idea, still in need of a moral principle.  Not sure what your moral principal would be.

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:42:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ideology is a set of ideas, a comprehensive vision. (0.00 / 0)

And yes, with experience one's set does, hopefully, become better. But that can't happen unless you have one to begin with.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly right (4.00 / 1)

Glenn Greenwald made a valuable contribution to this discussion earlier today.

---

by: Chammy Nooks @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:17:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you think Howard Dean is a progressive? (4.00 / 1)

I've always classified his politics as a sort of pragmatic, centrist progressivism. He is after all a guy who faced a challenge from the left in his last gubernatorial election with a third-party bid by a member of Bernie Sanders' Vermont Progressive Party.  He said that he's "not your guy" for total health care reform and declined to push for single-payer because he believed it unattainable.  I supported Dean in part because I think he was realistic about health care, drugs, and guns.  I supported Obama because I thought he had the most similar worldview.  I also think that Dean would have seen a lot of the same sorts of criticism had he been elected in 2004.

I think I am a progressive, but I probably lean more towards what Paul Rosenberg calls "classical" Progressivism.  I don't approve of governing Bush-style, swapping out conservative for liberal beliefs.  I see a need for change as a matter of both style and substance.  Others on this site would deem me non-progressive, but I think that "progressive" is a label that encompasses a certain amount of variation. I also don't think that "netroots" needs to be confined to an either/or proposition of being ideological or candidate-centric (I think partisan is a better name for the other option in the dilemma you pose).

 

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:31:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Howard Dean and liberal vs progressive (4.00 / 1)

First, "progressive" is a label that a lot of people use who refuse to self-identify as liberal. So I have some ambivalence about the "progressive" label. That being said, I think Dean is a true liberal because he has wholeheartedly embraced and worked his ass off for the central motivations of liberalism - democracy and rationality. Remember "You have the power"? 50 state strategy? Hello! Howard Dean has done more to democratize the Democratic Party than any other politician. It doesn't get any more liberal than that.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 15:05:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that's it (0.00 / 0)

...the ideology vs. politician schism, that is.

I've been trying to formulate a sense of what the two sides are about for a while now, and here's what I've got so far.

I think there is a Words vs. Deeds schism. The pivot is about whether Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.

On the one side, you have people who say that Obama has made this policy or that policy statement, and so he is progressive.  He has not had the opportunity to implement his policies, because he hasn't even been sworn in yet. So now is not the time to criticize him.

On the other side (FD: I'm on this side), you have people saying that Obama can and should be evaluated on his actual actions. We know what he has voted for, we know who he has campaigned for, we know who he has appointed to various key positions in his imminent administration. His actual actions are valid clues as to where he intends to take the country.

For either side, it is easy to assume that the other side irrationally loves or hates Obama.

It is clear enough that neither side shares enough language to even understand what the other side is talking about, or even why.

This language problem apparently goes beyond definitions of words to how we frame the issues.

---

by: barryr @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:01:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

all this talk of dinner (4.00 / 3)

is making me hungry.

---

by: tremayne @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 02:55:24 AM UTC

My girlfriend (0.00 / 0)

is making steak!

---

by: Jack @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 20:57:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why is everyone still talking about this? (4.00 / 9)

Everyone's been so caught up in the Obama vapors, to the sincere detriment of any sort of net-based progressive movement.

Obama's not a movement progressive.  OpenLeft is a movement progressive website.  We've known both facts for years.  

Stoller was right on the money all election season when describing how Obama ignored the netroots and built his own movement, a movement based in part around some general commonalities with netroots progressivism (health care reform, troop removal from Iraq), along with some stuff explicitly counter to netroots progressivism (notions of post-partisanship, increased millitary spending, etc.)

And yet the past three weeks, every second comment and third post on OpenLeft is another frustrated, often snarky, diatribe defining this old reality.  Why?  It's a waste of time.  How many posts does it take to say the sky is blue?  

Obama isn't movement progressive, OpenLeft is.  That's fine on all counts.  But let's stop constantly debating reality and actually start doing something movement progressivey.

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:03:07 AM UTC

Yeah, less "crying wolf" and negativism, more constructive ideas, pls! (0.00 / 0)

Like Davis said, the point has been made often enough, Obama really shortchanges the progressives who worked hard for his victory, but what can be done to assure that more progressives are appointed into influential positions in the WH? Obviously, protesting when the decisions have already been made behind the scenes is not good enough. Left wingers have to become more active in making staff proposals, and they need a reasonable plan about what to accomplish. What are the relevant positions that will influence policies that are important for progressives? Who are the qualified liberal candidates for those positions? What can be done to enhance their chances, and push the administration into the right direction?

More positive minded, action directed blogging would be good. Crying about spilled milk doesn't help anything and only leads to increasing frustration.

---

by: Gray @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:49:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I haven't been criticizing Obama (0.00 / 0)

Simply because I agree with everything he has done.

But then I don't spend a whole lot of energy pretending half the Dem party is further to the right than it is.

In my little world of make believe I actually think Clinton doesn't want to obliterate Iran. I think she wants to implement a policy of deterrence that has been known to work pretty well in the past.

Go figure.

But I guess if one really did believe that Clinton wanted to obliterate Iran, then sure, criticism of Obama should be allowed.

---

by: edgar08 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:07:56 AM UTC

Reality Check- it's you who are disappointed because you set unrealistic standards (4.00 / 9)

The problem is that you and others are good at critique, but not listening. I am guilty of it too. But right, now, it's definitely the front pagers. Your defensiveness about your inability to listen also does not help. You are in danger of becoming irrelevant.

I stayed away from these sorts of diary today just to make sure I am being fair in my assessment. I read as poster after poster critiqued your criticism. They did not say shut up. They said you were wrong. They gave you specifics of how you were wrong. One poster even broke out both your prior writings and the liberal punch cards for various members. Another tried in vain to point out that Obama's focus seems to be on expertise, not idealogical differences. And your response is this? Seriously?

No one has asked you to shut up. We have asked you to weight the full picture. We have also asked you to define  what you mean by progressive, because to be quite frank, it's a moving target. Your response to anything mentioned is "just not good enough."

I gave you the example of the stimulus package. You quickly dismissed it. You did not even answer my follow up because we both know you could not. It would require patiently waiting to see the details of the stimulus to fully judge it. Right now, all we know is that Obama wants to invest in infrastructure and new energy. Your response was to mention taxes.

I agree with the first poster. This is a cross roads. But not in the way he or you means. It's a cross roads of your relevancy.

Even how you discuss the people Obama has choosen keeps making me wonder how relevant you will remain?

I am not arguing about what these picks did or did not do in the past. I am talking about where they are at right now.

As I linked to last night, there is this:

"Instead of deregulation, Mr. Obama has sworn to usher in a period of re-regulation, to avoid the freewheeling risks that Citigroup and the rest of the financial industry undertook after Mr. Rubin, with Mr. Summers, helped tear down the regulatory walls between banks, brokerages and insurance companies, and freed them to trade in unregulated and little-understood derivatives worth trillions of dollars. Mr. Geithner spent his first years as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York seeking ways to at least monitor those markets better.

Instead of balancing budgets, the Obama team will be going deeper into debt for at least two years by spending hundreds of billions of dollars more to stimulate the economy, without concern for deficits, for aid to the jobless, states and cities; tax cuts for workers; and job-creating construction of roads, schools and other public works. Nor, given the downturn, is Mr. Obama expected to try to quickly bring in more revenue by repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000.

Mr. Summers, who may well end up being Mr. Obama's closest economic adviser, has been especially public in calling for a big stimulus package. Many saw his touch in Mr. Obama's call this weekend for the stimulus plan to create or save 2.5 million jobs.

"Everyone recognizes that we're looking at deficits of considerable magnitude," said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. "Whether it's Bob Rubin, Larry Summers or the most conservative economist, that is a widely shared recognition."

Liberals like Mr. Bernstein had long had an aversion to the kind of centrist economic policies of the Clinton years, which they felt were too concerned with deficit reduction and not focused enough on investment programs for labor and the middle class."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...

You are busy fighting the 1990s, and the trends are headed in the reverse, even with the people you are lambast as not being progressive enough. What does that mean here?

My feeling to be quite frank is that it really means "my friends whom I like did not get picked." People who are on my list did not get picked. That's to me is not the point of all of this.

I do not care about you or your friends with regard to policy. I care about the policy.

Several years ago my mother was a victim of the healthcare system. I want to know that the healthcare plans that they are proosing in Congress and with Obama's leadership will pass because I do not want anyone else to go through what we went through with her. Those are the things I care about. Not whether someone passes the OpenLeft progressive stamp of approval. I think if you ask most Americans that's what relevant to them.

So, I once again ask you can you focus on those sorts of battles?

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:09:40 AM UTC

Great comment. (4.00 / 3)

This really sums up my frustration with this website:

I read as poster after poster critiqued your criticism. They did not say shut up. They said you were wrong. They gave you specifics of how you were wrong. One poster even broke out both your prior writings and the liberal punch cards for various members. Another tried in vain to point out that Obama's focus seems to be on expertise, not idealogical differences. And your response is this? Seriously?

The inability to respond to criticism maturely or even have a debate of ideas just isn't happening at this website. It's too bad because this site could be a place to have interesting debate.  

---

by: askew @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:29:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A concrete example or two (4.00 / 2)

Focusing on battles like implementing Obama's health care program seems to me like of the main things that OpenLeft does.  That's why people on this site campaigned for Obama.  He's clearly a huge improvement over the Republicans, and Ralph Nader, though he might have some good ideas, isn't really a serious politician.

That doesn't mean that we have to stop there, though.  I'll call my congressmen and do what I can when it comes to helping enact Obama's health care reform, or his plans to combat climate change, because they'll be huge improvements over the status quo.  But I still won't be satisfied with them.  Obama's health proposal falls well short of single-payer health care, and his climate change proposal falls well short of what Al Gore has been talking about.  Although chances are we won't get these things from the Obama administration, you can be sure we won't get them if we don't ask.

---

by: Eurotrash @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:36:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They have no particularly been focused on policies (4.00 / 1)

They have been focused on whom Obama's advisors are and what there track record was like in the 1990s. They have not been particularly focused (as per my quote section) on where these people are right now. They assume here there can be no evolution. That people are stagnant. they don't get that the pragmatist due to circumstances can produce the same results as people with whom they trust because idealogy. That's again the point of the quote. Who are these people now? What are the facts ont he ground? My rebuttal is essentially pragmatism has its value as much as idelogy does. because these people re pragmatism we can not judge them for policies of the 1990s. It sucks, but the reality is that they do have the expertise of having worked on national or large scale issues. I want to know what progressives that Chris would approve of have this ability to hit the ground running like the circumstances now require. When asked this int eh past, he has not been able to answer the question.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:45:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, the goals are important, not especially the way that leads to them! (0.00 / 0)

This seems to become almost forgotten in the daily struggle here about this staff appointment and that policy statement. We only waste energy and nerves here in a fight between purists and pragmaticians. In the meantime, other forces try to assert their influence on the Obama administration. Really, instead of playing "People's Front of Judea" vs. "Judean People's Front", progressives should come up with a plan on how to build a progressive bridgehead in the WH. What are the goals, what the priorities? Where are influential allies? What can be done to successfully apply pressure?

Those are the question that should be discussed, not if Obama is a progressive or a moderate. We can't change him anyway. But by arging about this we miss the chance to change the future administration, at least a bit towards progressive interests.  

---

by: Gray @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:11:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Battles that matter (4.00 / 2)

Two years ago my wife was a victim of the disastrous heathcare system we have and we're still going through the effects of that. It's important to me, right now, to know that Obama's appointments have a progressive record and affiliation that will lead me to believe that they will back a healthcare policy that establishes access to quality healthcare as a right. Those who argue with me that "Obama never ran on universal healthcare" matter not to me. I'm still pressing for a progressive imperative even if Obama didn't explicitly back it in his campaign. And I'll complain if he gives the impression that this is not an interest of his. What other choice do I have? It's not about old battles of the '90s. This is our chance to make a difference now.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:49:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How does that help your wife in terms of policy? (0.00 / 0)

Chris is not discussing right now. He's' discussing the 1990s. He's not discussing whether Obama's economic policies are good. He's discussing what he thinks of Larry Summers. He's not discussing what Obama's present healthcare plan is (which if you check you will discover he substantively moved to where Edwards and Clinton are. He has said he would be okay, if I am reading it right, with mandates which Baucus has said will be part of it. This proposal by Baucus is also being heavily drafted by Kennedy. They have also said there will be a public option. ALl of that is public policy discussion. It's not asking is Daschle a progressive. It's asking is the plan they proposing progressive?). I don't know how much more i can make this clear.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:58:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's the process (0.00 / 0)

Activists for progressive causes have to continuously press for change. Lyndon Jonson had to be pressured into signing the Civil Rights Act. I'm not saying that Daschle isn't necessarily a progressive. He may be. But more than anything else, he's a politician. His track record is more aligned to DC-establishment thinking. As is the case of most of the Obama appointments. This is an inside-the-beltway bunch. Which means the progressive community has to pressure them to enact progressive legislation because DC establishment thinking has been anti-progressive for a very long time. How this will help my wife, I'm not sure. I just don't want other people, with fewer means, to face what we had to face.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:14:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If youw ant to press for change (0.00 / 0)

-real change. focus on the polciies not the personality stuff.  that's why I provide =d that link. To test whether these people were thinking as they did back in the 1990s. Not what they simply did in the 90s but is that still there view.

Elizabeth Edwards is involved in a healthcare org. They are dedicated to making sure the evolving policy does not end in defeat like 1993. What's happening here, at this site, is navel gazing. If they were trying to influence policy, this is not the way it to do it.

There is a practical reality here that they aren't discussing which was the subject matter of my initial post. Everyone realizes that we need to move left. That's not the question. the question is how to shape policies that favor better outcomes from people like my mother and your wife.

That's precisely is what is missing from this site. What they are doing now is what they did with Bush. It made since when it was Bush. Now it does not make as much sense. Why?

Because people are starting to shape policies. Every progressive blog should be pushign for what they think should be included.  The people do not seem like the key element to me.

They should be using it to critique plans. THey should be using it influence the debate before it starts. If y ou want to get ahead of them. That's the way to do it. This trying to say whether Daschle is liberal enough or not is missing th epoint. Daschle given the circumstances will do what's required.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:23:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know (4.00 / 1)

On the Hill, they say that "personnel is policy." So challenging appointments is a legitimate means to arguing potential policy approaches. And I haven't read your original post so can't comment on it. But yes, shaping policies is the issue and I believe that Chris is actually addressing this. As for critiquing actual plans, I agree I would also appreciate some genuine debate about health and education policy on this site but, quite frankly, don't feel that any of the frontpagers are so inclined as those types of diaries tend to get very wonky and dry. And I'm not convinced that "doing what we did to Bush" is inappropriate until I am convinced that DC establishment politics doesn't rule our country. (BTW, I love Elizabeth Edwards and what she is doing. Wonder if she'll have a role in the Obama administration?)

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:44:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

policy is policy (0.00 / 0)

it's the only thing that non insiders should care about.

You are right they are not so inclined to go beyond generalities and ill defined terms.

Tell me, do the updates by Chris help you with any of the pressing questions for your family? If they do, I'd love to know how.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:33:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No and yes (4.00 / 1)

Chris and others on this site who voice concern over Obama's cabinet and personnel picks definitely raise anxiety levels for progressives everywhere. But we all know from experience that there is a danger in taking a wait-and-see attitude and going with a "let the Experienced and Serious" inside the Beltway-ers govern. I want to see an active, progressive faction agitating from the outside. So, in that way, these exchanges on OpenLeft help.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 13:04:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With all due respect, your wife's health situation is most (0.00 / 0)

likely helped in the long run with Tom Daschle as HHS secretary and health reform czar.  He is a strong advocate for universal health care.  You may want to pick up his book "Critical" to get an idea where he is coming from.

http://www.amazon.com/Critical...

Now, is Daschle on the face of it a progressive as it is narrowly defined by some here, like a Dennis Kucinich, say?  No.  Is he MUCH more likely to get a universal health care system moving through Congress that is strongly progressive and has a chance to be off the ground in a hurry vs. having a Kucinich cranking for single-payer insurance that would take many years to push in and would perhaps never take off, never be implemented and could become a political disaster for everybody on our side?  I go with the former and leave the purity griping to others, because I, too, have a big personal stake in a progressive health care system being implemented quickly.  

This actually aptly illustrates the fallacy of the argumentation here.  Is the "pure" progressive view to push for single-payer health insurance?  Yes.  But does it have a chance at this point?  No.  I rather get a universal system now with a Daschle who can get it through Congress than nothing at all while claiming to have stayed "pure and strong" with unbending progressivism.  

Many lives depend on it, many people could perish because of the broken health care system if we foolishly insist on purity for its own sakes while getting nothing accomplished.

---

by: devilrays @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 16:19:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your point about Daschle is very well taken (4.00 / 2)

and I tend to agree with you. No, I wouldn't want Kucinich heading up HHS either. But having someone like Elizabeth Edwards involved somewhere in the Obama policy team would be good, no? I think the concern coming from Chris, Matt, David and others is the uniformity of the selection criteria, especially on the economic team which is so dominated by Wall Street-and-Chambers-of-Commerce-approved DC players.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 16:35:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The concern is a bit too reflexive, IMHO (0.00 / 0)

Elizabeth Edwards could be a good addition for Daschle's team, although I doubt she would get involved at this point unless it is in a more remote advisory role, given the personal issues the Edwards' are dealing with.  But, yes, how Daschle builds his team will tell a lot about the White House's strategy on health care.  His personal views are known, and they are more in line with Edwards and H. Clinton's (and the health care system crafted in Congress at this point) than Obama's, which is a good thing, IMO.

As for the larger point about the cabinet selection, keep in mind that Obama, while progressive, had the least progressive voting record of all candidates running with the exception of Edwards.  He is to the right of the progressive spectrum - his most recent Progressive Punch rating shows him at 46th out of 100 Senators, although some of the lowered ranking came about by missing many votes during the primaries and GE.  His overall viewpoints are clearly progressive, but he appears to believe in the incremental approach that brings results rather than posturing for the most progressive approach imaginable that would just wither away in committee and leave him with zero results.  On health care the Daschle vs. Kucinich comparison we talked about earlier may help illustrate that point better than an abstract example could.

Again, as for the overall selections, I think it is not quite as uniformly centrist as claimed.  Daschle is clearly one of the most progressive voices when it comes to implementing universal health care, which is what his role will be.  He is uniquely positioned to get it done, which makes this look like an extremely strong choice to get health care reform accomplished fast, pushed through Congress expeditiously with a minimum amount of reworking and pushing bills around.  What exactly is wrong about Napolitano for Homeland Security?  Hillary at State?  They are probably some of the best choices for the respective roles one can imagine.  

Now, as for the economic team, I agree that it is decidedly centrist, with an eye towards deficits.  The markets clearly liked the Geitner move, which is probably a strong positive reaction that will be helpful in the long run, but I would have liked to see a labor guy at OMB.  

---

by: devilrays @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 17:38:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are no proposals on the table right now (4.00 / 1)

people most definitely did look at the relative proposals put forth by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, both here and throughout the lefty blogs.

But those proposals were just the seeds of policy.  There is nothing to analyze right now, other than the people who will be writing the actual proposals that are going to be advanced in January.  

Why shouldn't it be valid to question whether the people who will be writing the actual policy will actually give us policy that we want?

And isn't it especially relevant, considering how closely to his chest Obama has been holding his cards ever since this whole thing started?  

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:43:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No he didn't have to be pressured..he wanted to pass the Civil Rights Act (4.00 / 2)

According to Bill Moyers,  who worked for Johnson then, he actively worked with Martin Luther King.  He and  MLK strategized what was needed to help him make Congress pass the bill.

Lyndon Jonson had to be pressured into signing the Civil Rights Act.

Lyndon Johnson did not have to be pressured to do the right thing...he knew what the right thing was...and the era demanded that he act. So he did.  I think Barack is under the same demands.

I think Robert in Monterey's first comment is correct. I had long charaterized Barack Obama as not the progressive his admirers thought he was or his campaign allowed his admirers to think he was.  And some of his cabinet appointments have the potential to be real disappointments...I think it is correct to be leery and cautious about what advice they give and how they implement policy.  

But the wave of this enormous financial crisis swept Obama to a much larger victory than he would have had without it, it has also swept him to more progressive policies that I thnk he would have chosen prior to Sept 15th.  

Digby in the first half of her usual insightful post ( to which I mostly concur though the second half is very disturbing) makes the point much better than I have.  The policies of the right are directly responsible for the financial/economic disaster...the only responses THAT WILL WORK have to come from the progressive left..the old, new and present progressive left.  

And Obama, he is not a progressive ideologue, but he is a pragmatist and wants WHAT WORKS.  The only cure is a progressive cure.  He knows that and even the Clintonites he is appointing know that.  (Once upon a time they were 60's style liberals...liberalism is a residual memory that some of them could start recalling)

So he is looking/moving in the right direction...the question is how far, is it enough, and will it be done well enough to be successful?  

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com...

And if it were normal times, we might expect him to fulfill the Village's "center-right" domestic dreams based upon where the center of political gravity has been these last few years. But these are not normal times and conservative economics are completely inoperative in a severe economic crisis. So, he's likely to be more liberal in that area than any of us ever dreamed he'd be, as will all of his neo liberal economic advisors. There is just no other choice available than massive government intervention, which is a fundamentally liberal concept. The only question is if they will be competent at carrying out liberal economic policies,or if they will persist in the current program of badly structured bailouts of badly run companies. Let's hope it's the former, because the latter is just more of what Bernanke calls "finger in the dike" economics and they ain't working.

I am more sanguine than I was before. Some  have had high expectations and have them dashed, having lot lesser ones..he's promised to do more than I expected.

The village could tackle him and bring him down...we'll have to wait to see.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:18:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

agree with this post (0.00 / 0)

practical effect over general discussion indicates that to be the case. ie, the stimulus package and re regulation are coming from the very people that here are being defined as not progressive enough. they are doing it for practical reason. it does not matter therefore for practical reasons what they did before so long as we agree with what they plan to do now. ironically, the same thing that makes them centrists or pragmatist is the thing that matters for our ends.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:37:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very reductive (4.00 / 1)

My feeling to be quite frank is that it really means "my friends whom I like did not get picked." People who are on my list did not get picked. That's to me is not the point of all of this.

This is very reductive. The previous post was about DLCers and what the DLC stands for--it provided concrete specifics.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:11:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

reductive is cutting a piece of what I wrote (0.00 / 0)

out of a greater comment.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:58:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is going to be long and tiring (4.00 / 1)

Reality Check- it's you who are disappointed because you set unrealistic standards

 

I take it this is a variation of the "purity" meme. But is it standards that we are talking about, or is it direction?  I for one do not think about whether Obama is good enough.  I think about whether he is going be trying to turn the country in the right direction. If he is going to move to the right, albeit more slowly and more competently than the Republicans, then I know I need to convince him to turn around.

These bloggers and others keep coming back to this because if people think that we're now heading to the left when we are in fact still heading to the right, then they won't help push back on Obama's direction.

The problem is that you and others are good at critique, but not listening.

I think you are mistaken, as I spelled out in response to Robert. The assumption underlying the "you're not listening" gambit is that one's arguments are so lucid and so correct that anyone who hears them must agree with them.

You are in danger of becoming irrelevant.

That is a threat you cannot deliver on. I kinda winced, because it's what the Bush people said to the U.N. when the U.N. wasn't bowing down fast enough.

They said you were wrong. They gave you specifics of how you were wrong. One poster even broke out both your prior writings and the liberal punch cards for various members. Another tried in vain to point out that Obama's focus seems to be on expertise, not idealogical differences.

Those arguments failed to convince the other side of anything -- just as our arguments failed to convince you of anything. We should keep trying to reformulate our arguments.  I recommend as the next step that we settle on our terminology.

And your response is this? Seriously?

Or we could say, "I see you've become upset. It's a shame that our misunderstanding has caused us to lash out at each other."

We have also asked you to define  what you mean by progressive, because to be quite frank, it's a moving target.

I don't think you can lay claim to any high ground on this question.

Your response to anything mentioned is "just not good enough."

To make any progress in understanding, I think we're going to have to stop putting words in other people's mouths.  You say no on told Chris to STFU. That's fair.  Chris's response to anything mentioned was not "just not good enough." Fair?

As for your discussion of the proposed stimulus package and deficit spending: I did not personally find it compelling  because even the Bush admin is flinging money at the economy. Whether they give it to Joe the Plumber or the CEO of Citigroup, it flies in the face of conservative neo-liberal ideology. You can declare that I failed to listen or that nothing is good enough for me, but if you do, I could just say the same about you.  Or you could try to understand my perspective and re-formulate your argument.

You are busy fighting the 1990s, and the trends are headed in the reverse, even with the people you are lambast as not being progressive enough. What does that mean here?

My feeling to be quite frank is that it really means "my friends whom I like did not get picked." People who are on my list did not get picked. That's to me is not the point of all of this.

I do not care about you or your friends with regard to policy. I care about the policy.

These characterizations of Chris's position tell me that you still don't understand Chris's position. So if he wants to win you over, he'll have to try to understand you better and reformulate his argument.

But I think it's also in line with my Deeds vs Words thesis. You don't care about the people, you care about the policy. (And wasn't you who several times described them as "personalities" when David was talking about persons?). To me, this doesn't compute because I can't disentangle the people he hires from his policies.  In fact, we can deduce his hiring policies from his hiring. And further, I can't help but think that the people he has surrounded himself with not only reflects his values but are an indication of what kind of advice and feedback he will be getting.

So you can see where I'm listening, but I still don't understand you.

Not whether someone passes the OpenLeft progressive stamp of approval.

The point of this isn't approval. It's knowing where we stand in relation to the new government, so we know what we need to do to achieve our progressive objectives.  

---

by: barryr @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:26:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

rec'd for sanity (0.00 / 0)

.

---

by: Luce Imaginary @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seriously (4.00 / 4)

Just lost a little respect for you Chris... This was extremely petty and beneath you.  You are a much smarter and intelligent guy than this post would say.   You should delete this immediately.  

I'm sure my respect will return, but this post was something I expect to find at some cut rate blogspot cite with 10 hits a month, not an A list political blog.    

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:13:03 AM UTC

Seriously (4.00 / 2)

I just lost a little respect for you Yitbos... That was a really amateur comment to make. Telling Chris to delete his post and that you lost respect.... You're a much smarter guy than this. This was petty and beneath you. You should delete this comment.

Maybe my respect will return.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:43:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The irony of your post is that its everything you (0.00 / 0)

accuse people here who want to wait to see what Obama does of being- personality driven.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:46:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But don't you see... (4.00 / 2)

This is all pursuant to Chris's double-secret plan to support Obama.

You see simply having centrist or conservative appointments isn't enough.  He needs to actually receive criticism from progressives in order to be genuine.

Actually, I do think Obama has a secret plan.  His secret plan is to see what he can get away with from some groups.

I don't hate Obama or anything, but I have a secret plan to try to set limits on his centrism early.

---

by: idratherbedrunk @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:29:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm. Personally, I like irony much better than "horseshit comment"... (0.00 / 0)

"full of crap" and "full of shit". Such phrases don't really inspire respect for the author, either. Not to defend Chris' views, actually I'm closer to your opinion here, just saying you should care about the beam in your own eye, too, if you want to improve the level of discourse here...
:-/

---

by: Gray @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:29:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what is a Progressive? (4.00 / 1)

     Seriously.
    If I want to find one website that lists univerally-agreed-upon defining traits of Progressives, moderates/centrists, and Conservatives, what site would that be?
1)   When Obama was running for president, McCain frequently accused him of being the most liberal person in the entire Senate. (I personally think Bernie Sanders is more liberal than Obama, but Obama is surely among the 5 or 10 most liberal in the Senate.) Also, white liberals like me that despise racism did like the symbolism of finally putting an African American in the White House. (Though I would never have voted for Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas.) If electing any other Senator than Obama would have been a bigger Progressive victory, then I want to know who that would have been. Seriously.
    In fact, can anyone name a bigger Progressive victory in the past decade? Generation? Century? Maybe, just maybe, the election of FDR was more of a victory for Progressives than the election of Obama.
2)   I do agree that it is fair to judge Obama's actions in office. When he acts more "center" than "left", we can call him on it. But really, how many of us voted for Ralph Nader? Don't we all understand that a presidential election is a choice of "lesser evils"? I worked my ass off to help Obama get elected, but I did not do so with the expectation that he would deliver Utopia to us on his first day in office.
3)   I agree with Robert in Monterey, that the netroots now face a choice. We can declare Obama to be the "Progressive Pope" and call every one of his words and deeds infallible. Or we can decide what we want, and then judge his actual performance in comparison to what we wanted. I want us to establish standards, and then apply them to Obama. (Though I also want us to remember that even if Obama gets an occasional "C-", McCain would have surely gotten no better than an "F-"... and once McCain died in office, President Palin would have done even worse and we would have had to invent a whole new grading scale to fully express her awfulness.)

Luke 12:48 "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required". Would Jesus want progressive taxation, or regressive taxation?

---

by: Christian_Dem_NY @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:16:27 AM UTC

Seriously (0.00 / 0)

Point by point:
1. Sure, context matters. No one on his site voted for McCain. So this is totally beside the point.
2. I worked my ass off to (so did Chris). Now we have to work to ensure progressive legislation. Do you think the activist process stops after the election?
3. Umm. That's the point of the diary: What is Obama's performance so far. Not so great. What McCain would have done is irrelevant.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:01:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so great? (0.00 / 0)

 Do you support his stimulus?  

---

by: Seth @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:09:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes I do (4.00 / 1)

But the subject of the diary is about appointments, and I agree with Chris that the Obama administration is projecting that it will favor a very inside-the-beltway POV that has been historically anti-progressive. There are "faith-based" commenters who beleive that Obama is just doing this as a strategy to hide his overall progressive agenda. But after 8 years of faith-based leadership, I ain't buying that argument. And neither is Chris.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:20:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But your comment was broader (4.00 / 1)

 you said that Obama's preformance so far was "not so great."

So in essence, you agree with his major policy positions, but dont agree with his cabinet, right?

If 8 years from now, you turn around and say "You know, I liked all of the policies Obama enacted, but man I think his cabinet was too centrist" could you live with that?

By the way, Summers, who I assume you arent happy with, is the chief creator of the stimulus plan, which you like.  

---

by: Seth @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:24:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

bingo (0.00 / 0)

its like they are stuck on where these people were in the 1990s and not caring at all about what they have proposed now. it takes no faith to read what summers is proposing. it takes no faith to understand that baucus in the congress and dascle and others are talking about something a kin to what clinton./edwards proposed.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:26:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're better than this (0.00 / 0)

Repetition is not argument. And I don't know who "they" are. But if I see more presence of an Edwards-stance against corpratists and DC establishment in Obama's appointments to cabinet and administration positions, I will grant you have a legitimate point.  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:58:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you say so (0.00 / 0)

I am kind of done with this site. I thought maybe I would give it one more try.  

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:28:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't leave on my account (0.00 / 0)

I've generally enjoyed your comments on this site and find your analytical way of thinking constructive to the conversation.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 13:11:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Woah (0.00 / 0)

I respond to a specific comment, not from you, to a diary, not written by you, but you get to define what the argument is about. Nevertheless, what so far appears to be a "major policy position" has yet to be fleshed out. And 8 years, hell 8 months, from now I could be totally against the way that policy was implemented by a cabinet and other staff who tend to be DC establishment enablers. Is there any way that you can foresee such an outcome?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:53:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wasnt seeking to define anything (0.00 / 0)

just to ask a question

---

by: Seth @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:33:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and our rebuttal to the discussion of the appointments (0.00 / 0)

is a) what policies are they putting forward and b) despite the history what are they saying now, and what plans are they planning to make. hence my link above to the nytimes article. you really should read it.

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:25:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Missing the point (4.00 / 4)

 Since this entry seems in large point a repetition of the points you made in response to me, I will assume the larger entry itself is partially a response to me and I will respond accordingly:

1.) The general premise of your last entry has...odd. Because some of the members of Obama's cabinet belonged to a Democratic organization to which you did not like, you said their actual records didn't matter. Thats a stretch. Period.

2.) No one said you couldn't criticize Obama.

3.) The whole, "you can't criticize a policy position before it is enacted" is a straw man. I clarified to say you should judge candidates/elected officials based on their actual policy positions and actions. If you agreed with McCain on all of his policies, but supported Obama solely because of whom McCain associated with, or more precisely because he associated with people who were part of an organization you did not like, I would find that odd.

4.) I certainly never said Obama had a secret progressive plan; his plan is what he has said it has been for over a year. You can like it or not, think it is progressive or not. But recognize it hasn't changed. (the only real change in O's plans is he has increased the size of his stimulus bill).

Finally, how many progressives, by your definition, does Obama need to appoint before you would be satisfied?

---

by: Seth @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:16:59 AM UTC

Endless (4.00 / 1)

I can't wait for the Obama administration to start so that people who have an intense desire to mistrust and complain have something real to complain about.

---

by: Semblance @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:17:39 AM UTC

Very constructive (4.00 / 4)

Reading this was a great use of my time. I look forward to more posts with Chris and Natasha being snarky and planning their evenings over IM.

Hey, just by the way, there was a press conference today in which Obama discussed the outlines of a policy which might spend $700 billion - or more! - on projects creating blue-collar jobs across the country. That's not important, I guess. Because he's a great big DINO.

Never mind. What did you have for dinner?

---

by: Mithras @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:22:18 AM UTC

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

Please don't bother the Open Left diarists with pesky things like actual policy comments from Obama. They don't want to talk about that.

---

by: Semblance @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:26:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very true (0.00 / 0)

It is much more fun to sit in a room with Stoller and Sirota, smoke cigarettes, and talk about how the revolution failed.

I think they have lost their collective minds.

And, Chris, while we are here, pure snark to try and beat back legit critique's isn't a good look for you, anymore than it is from Sirota.  

---

by: membengal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst (4.00 / 2)

For 8 years we have just wanted someone we could get behind and respect and fight for. Enter Obama, one of the most charismatic politicians in modern history.

He ran on progressive issues-- healthcare, out of Iraq, clean energy, the end of fear as a political weapon.

And now we're watching him fill his command post with people who have been luke-warm on these very issues.

So yes lets give him a a chance and see how he does.

But lets take Chris/Matt et al's warning that the progressive smoke signals are not there the way they could be or even should be.

In good faith, lets hope for the best from Obama, but in practical terms, lets be prepared to dig our heels in and fight him if he turns luke warm.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:24:17 AM UTC

While one should always be on guard and don't trust (0.00 / 0)

what a politician tells you fully (they are politicians, after all,) this comment needs a bit of discussion:

"He ran on progressive issues-- healthcare, out of Iraq, clean energy, the end of fear as a political weapon.

And now we're watching him fill his command post with people who have been luke-warm on these very issues"

The crux of the issue some have is that the argument you are advancing is not correct.  Let's take healthcare.  Obama ran on health care reform, that is true.  But it was not universal health care, he himself acknowledged and admitted that his health care system would have the potential to keep about 20 Million uninsured.   Now, we KNOW that Hillary Clinton actually had as her centerpiece legislation universal health care. Also, Tom Daschle, incoming HHS secretary AND health reform "czar" wrote a book on the health care crisis in which he strongly advocates a universal health care system:

http://www.americanprogress.or...

Read Ezra Klein on the Tom Daschle selection as it relates to health care:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b...

Lukewarm?  Not a chance.  The cabinet selections actually suggest that we might end up with a health care system superior to what Obama himself had proposed in the first place.

I also see no justification to claim that the cabinet selections are somehow a detriment to the campaign goal "clean energy."  Maybe you can explain the point you are making here with a concrete example.

As to "the end of fear as a political weapon," I am not sure how an increased focus on hands-on sit-down diplomacy with probably the most respected diplomat/politician on the world stage does not attempt its darndest to do a whole lot of ending fear based politicking.  

---

by: devilrays @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:44:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Try this experiment everyone (4.00 / 2)

Simply stop using the term "progressive" when debating the merits of what Obama is doing.

By now, it should be pretty obvious that there is no consensus here what "progressive" means, which is why there is so much ink spent (well, digital ink) arguing who is or is not a true progressive.

Personally, I think it would be infinitely more constructive to debate policies, rather than labels.

---

by: Jim Neuman @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:32:33 AM UTC

The problem is not what "progressive" means... (0.00 / 0)

the problem is how to achieve progressive goals. And, imho, the fight is between purists, who argue that no Clintonista can or will fight for progressive policies, and pragmaticians, who don't care what camp any single official comes from, as long as the administration as a whole will implement liberal policies.

What unnerves pragmaticians is the boohoohooing about every single post that goes to someone who isn't ideologically pure enough. And this raises concerns that the over the top concern trolling will further diminish any influence progressives may have over the Obama administration. It sure would be a much better idea to accept compromises, no, to demand them. Like this: "Rubin boy Geithner for treasury? Ok, but then NOT Summers for advisor, but, say, James Galbraith instead!"

What little bit of influence that the progressive blogosphere may have, criticizing every single appointment instead of concentrating on enforcing the right (left!) balance is a sure way to waste it.

---

by: Gray @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:38:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm a liberal (0.00 / 0)

Which, by definition, is so extremely radical and outside of the mainstream it puts me in the Oort Cloud. I not only get to STFU I must orbit eccentrically.  

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

---

by: Stoic @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:35:33 AM UTC

This is sort of ridiculous... (4.00 / 2)

Obama proposed things we (progressives) like, has taken progressive positions on things that we like (and some we don't like, but probably overall more we like), and campaigned on things we like...

McCain didn't.  I'm not saying that you can't criticize your picks... surely, you can.  However, his picks aren't the only things that are going to determine his policy and determine how is administration actually... administrates.  Certainly, as President, he's going to have a lot of influence on that.

Are we going to love everything he does?  No, of course not.  But the way some people are acting its as if Obama is already a failed presidency.  It hasn't even started yet... let's try to steer Obama towards making sure his campaign promises get fulfilled, rather than just complain all the time about every appointment which basically has nothing to do with his campaign promises (and actually, with regard to his campaign promises, he's basically said he would appoint centrists... so this isn't exactly surprising, even if it is disappointing).

---

by: leshrac55 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:36:51 AM UTC

I don't mean to be rude, Chris... (4.00 / 1)

...but I doubt the authenticity of this conversation.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:45:34 AM UTC

John Brennan (4.00 / 6)

John Brennan worked closely with Gerge Tenet while they were (are) torturing people. He is bad news. Please write to the Obama transition people and make it clear you don't want him anywhere near the CIA.

Or, by all means, have a discussion about whether Obama will or won't be a "progressive," whatever that's supposed to mean. It is, as always, your choice.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:47:16 AM UTC

I agree (0.00 / 0)

 He would be a terrible pick  

---

by: Seth @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:55:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, let's discuss Obama's beliefs, instead of trying to achieve sth! (0.00 / 0)

Good point! We can't change Obama, but we may at least influence some appointment decisions. Takes no brains to see what is more helpful now.

---

by: Gray @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those Updates are a little unbecoming... (4.00 / 5)

I think this site, and the net-based progressive movement as a whole, would be better served if progressive bloggers started taking criticism of their writing as seriously as they'd like Obama to take their criticism of his governing style.

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:54:39 AM UTC

Sorry Chris... (4.00 / 1)

I started reading this site in July to sate my election nerd-hunger. I've really enjoyed a vast amount of the coverage, even if David seems to constantly stroke himself and Chris gets rather snarky.

But this article/post, as I suppose is this comment... it's simply worthless. It really embodies all the negative conceptions people have about liberal bloggers - eternally dissatisfied, constantly bitchy, with a sprinkling of over-the-top snark. Constructive criticism is good, but, and I HATE to use the word, crying is just a total waste of your time. Chris, you're a better writer than this.

---

by: jsmith307 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:06:16 AM UTC

I guess what frustrates me... (4.00 / 3)

Is the complete imbalance between reviewing his policies and his appointments.

I happen to like the people he has selected so far, but even if you dont: why arent we talking at all about Obama's stimulus package? That is an actual policy position.

 

---

by: Seth @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:13:15 AM UTC

That's a very good point (4.00 / 1)

We definitely should be organizing around that now.

Here's an idea: This is going to be the mother of all stimuli, thus this is going to be a big 'ol bus with hopefully some room for some big 'ol progressive legislation attached to it that won't be filibustered because the republicans won't want to look like their obstructionists. So how about this, instead of worrying about Obama's cabinet picks, why not start working and lobbying to get the card check bill attached to the economic stimulus?

---

by: adamterando @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:44:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This talk of "secret plans" (4.00 / 1)

 Is absurd.

Obama doesnt have a "secret progressive plan" he has a very public one.

He has run on the same agenda for two years now.

Since taking office, the only major change to his plan is he has increased the size of the stimulus.  

---

by: Seth @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:34:57 AM UTC

So what's next? (0.00 / 0)

What next "I know you are, but what am I?"

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:31:53 AM UTC

The disdain you apparently have for your readership (4.00 / 1)

far outweighs any disdain Obama may have for netroots progressivism.

---

by: davisbanimal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:37:36 AM UTC

I think I may speak for many lurkers here... (4.00 / 1)

...when I say that I totally agree with many of your points, Chris, as I do with Greenwald's.  I've ranted against so-called pragmatism in the name of principle many times before, but I have no desire to jump into it again right here -- especially since here, at least, the main bloggers have it right.  So -- there are probably many who support you but don't really want to dive into the muck of defending you.  But we're here -- and we'll keep reading.

---

by: Lester @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:07:22 AM UTC

Better a stained winner than a beautiful loser! (0.00 / 0)

Being stubborn about ideology, and not moving a little bit, even though something could be gained by a bargain, is no winning strategy. Principles are necessary to find the right direction, but they shouldn't prevent you from achieving, say, 75% of your goals instead of gaining nothing. Just focus on realistical alternatives, make the best possible choice, and step by step you'll come closer to your goal than by trying one big jump, ever and ever again.

---

by: Gray @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:57:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We need a leader (0.00 / 0)

I'm no expert but...
Every country, every tribe, town, every church I've ever read about has one leader. It must be hardwired. When Bush was leader, his secretiveness, ignorance, wealth-centric cold-heartedness penetrated everythwere. When there are two leaders, the people split apart and lose some power in the larger world.

When we were working to get Obama elected, we were united around a leader. Obama's smart and competent, and its very good that we helped put him in office. He's a politician who seems to be disappearing into the Washington culture of wealth and will barely hear our disorganized voices.

We need an elected leader. We really do. Left bloggers tend to be pretty anti-authoritarian, as do left commenters, but please. I check out a lot of blogs when I have the time, and I'm always getting email action alerts, and I do some local activism, but it feels like its going nowhere. The power is fragmented. I miss the leader we wished Obama was.

One reason the right has so much influence is that they're organized, and they get their message out.

The progressive leader would be somebody who is calmer than most, and who's been right about a lot of things, and willing to accomodate positions he/she doesn't fully believe in if the members do. He/she would be democratically elected by lefties, and paid something. His main function would be to focus the left- set priorities, listen, select a few actions at a time. This would not be a political party, it would be a web-based meta organization.

Probably half the blogs and organizations in existence wanted to fullfill this function. MoveOn.org was doing alright until half the left rebelled. Part of the problem is that these leaders select themselves, or are selected by small offline groups. Even the Green Party has a convoluted scheme to disempower the rank and file. Do we want an umbrella, or do we just want to keep wandering around as proud wet cats stalked by giant scary egos?

Wouldn't any existing web site that started such an effort be scorned by a lot of people with pre-existing opionions? "Too radical, too centrist, makes me mad, too flaky, too gay, too straight, too intellectual, too exclusive, too big, too small...."

I'm thinking of a new website with no primary blogger, but lots of links. The website would have to be created by a non-person, or somebody with a fatal illness and no personality to avoid criticism, competition and jealousy. Readers could nominate people. There could be preliminary polls, then if everything went well, a real election.  

---

by: annzillion @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:17:18 AM UTC

Frankly... (4.00 / 2)

I don't care if you criticize Obama or not. I just want you to STFU about how mean everyone is being to you because you crit Obama.
Just ban 'em if they bother you so much.

---

by: SBE @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 13:16:33 PM UTC

Applause (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: membengal @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 14:39:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If I hired Hitler, What would that say? (4.00 / 1)

Hiring people matters.

Also critique is critical!!!  Conyers was brilliant when he said that he would be "Fredrick Douglas to Obama's Lincoln."  Yes -- even "progressives" criticized Lincoln.  I am not going to stop criticizing Obama because a bunch of faint-hearted pseudo progressives want to continue worshipping him.

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

---

by: damitajo1 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 14:14:30 PM UTC

Is this really necessary? (0.00 / 0)

I only read comments here about half the time, but I don't see an overwhelming number of "STFU, love Obama, kumbaya" stuff. Maybe it comes to your inbox, I don't know.

But this is just silly.

I am actually a huge fan of yours and have been here since the site opened. But this is just petty, and beneath your excellent qualities as a blogger.

If you have a case against the cult of personality crowd, make it.

I look forward to future excellent posts.

---

by: alteran @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 14:29:38 PM UTC

banning critical voices (0.00 / 0)

is a good step in this direction.

I can't say how disappointed I am that I was banned. I feel I was banned specifically for this reason, of not being enough of a cheer leader for the Obama democratic party. nonsense. Obama's financial first steps do not bode well - at all. Oh, what the fuck do I know, the cheerleaders say. Good question. Read your history. From what I read of history were headed down a dark path.

$800B more in taxpayer money thrown on the bonfire this morning to prop up the consumer lending market. every single one of these steps has Obama's approval all over it. dont let your pom poms wilt when you and your children have have your taxes increased to pay back all this crap for the finance (and soon to be auto) industry. (inflation is a tax increase folks)

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 14:39:39 PM UTC

Obama is NOT a movement progressive (4.00 / 1)

I think we all knew that.  We were faced with a choice of a terrible right wing McCain - at least, he ran as a right winger - and Obama.  I always said Obama is in the middle.

With that said, I hoped Obama would bring in a few progressives into his cabinet to create balance.  So far, I don't see very few - basically none in his economic council. Presidents change their cabinets as they go along.  I hope Obama realizes that he may have gone too far right and brings in a few progressives.

---

by: rj4nj @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 17:04:55 PM UTC

As someone who has also... (4.00 / 1)

...decided to STFU about my skepticism about Obama's appointments, I have to agree with those who are tired of hearing OpenLefters whine about the critiques directed at them. You guys created the forum, you're enjoying the traffic, so doesn't all this fall under the be-careful-what-you-wish-for category?

Personally, I'm beginning to think that the Washington insiders surrounding Obama may end up doing compelling things while governing because his mandate means that there'll be considerably less partisan hostility and compromising than they were used to during the Clinton years. For example, it's pretty obvious to me that, say, Hillary and a bunch of Dem senators voted for the Iraq War in a jingoistic frenzy that was attached to not wanting to appear soft on defense. That's probably the best reason why Hillary should not have won the presidency, but Obama's win signifies that things have clearly swung in the other direction. Love Bill Clinton or mistrust him (I fall into the latter category), but the line on him was always that he was a brilliant guy and potentially visionary leader who sold out progressives for any number of "pragmatic" reasons. So just imagine...s'pose his folks actually see this presidency as a time that they can finally get things done that they could never even dream of before. What would that mean for the country? I've begun thinking that these are things we cannot know until after Inauguration Day.      

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

---

by: tru blu @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 18:43:20 PM UTC